www.Kisii.Com: Syndicated news from only reputable sources [Nation, and Standard Newspapers, Kenya Times, KBC, etc.]

Judge Disqualifies Himself in Case Against Gesami

  • Print
Details
Published on Saturday, 05 November 2011 02:47

A criminal case against Public Health assistant minister James Gesami hit a snag yesterday after a judge disqualified himself. Newly appointed High Court Judge David Majanja told parties that he was not comfortable handling the case relating to misuse of CDF and instead directed the file to be placed before another judge today.

Justice Majanja disclosed that the assistant minister had earlier sought for his advice over the matter, before he was appointed as a judge. He said Gesami consulted him before he (Gesami) instructed lawyer Ochieng Oduol to act for him.

Gesami moved to court to stop any attempts to arrest him for allegedly failing to comply with the law and procedures relating to tendering of contracts. A week ago, he told court that he intends to have the matter sorted out of court. Through lawyer Oduol, Gesami said he had initiated talks with officials of Ethics Anti-Corruption Commission even though there is no response.

The anti-corruption agency said it was not able to give feedback to the assistant minister as it is in transition period. Parties had gone back to court yesterday to inform the judge of their decision. A warrant of arrest was issued against Gesami at the Kisumu magistrates court in July after KACC applied for it.

The anti-corruption body wants to charge Gesami for allegedly failing to comply with the law and procedures relating to tendering of contracts. The agency claims the West Mugirango MP irregularly sought the services of Gracan Construction to carry out routine maintenance of the Kebirigo-Mosobeti road at a cost of Sh2,497,900.

But Gesami in his application, claims his prosecution was initiated for ulterior motives. According to him, he risks suspension from his present appointment because of the proceedings instituted by KACC in Kisumu Court. He believes the criminal case is prejudicial.